The Drug War

Here are a couple of police abuses in the name of the War on Drugs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/27/cops-ate-pot-brownies-houston_n_982051.html

Cops Accused Of Eating Man's Pot Brownies, Bragging About It

Two Houston police officers could be asking "dude, where's my credibility?" after a suspect accused them of eating his pot brownies.

Nicholas Hill, 19, claims that Houston cops took his brownies, that they knew were laced with marijuana, and munched away after arresting the teen for pot possession.

ABC 13 found something more substantial than just Hill's claim. The station reports that it has obtained messages typed by the officers on their in-car computers after confiscating and consuming the baked goods.

"So HIGH... Good munchies," one officer supposedly wrote. "Everything should be open when we get done," the other responded.

One of Hill's defense attorneys, Daniel Cahill, told The Huffington Post that, if his client's accusations prove to be true, they could have very serious consequences.

"If what is alleged is true then it really calls into question everything that went on that day," Cahill said. "If we have police destroying evidence or maybe not following the rules that they need to be following, that brings into question the integrity of the system and everything these guys have done, possibly."

Houston Police Department spokesperson John Cannon told HuffPost that the department would not speculate on what penalties the officers would face if the accusations are found to be accurate.

"HPD is looking into the matter and will conduct a thorough investigation," Cannon said.

The officers remain on active duty while the investigation takes place, according to Cannon.

Cahill said that, until the investigation is finished, it's unclear what will happen with his client's case.

"We're waiting on the investigation before we can really move," he said. "We're stuck in a holding pattern."


http://www.detnews.com/article/2011...ith-misusing-drug-funds-suspended-without-pay

Romulus cops charged with misusing drug funds suspended without pay


Ex-chief, officers allegedly spent $100K on prostitutes, marijuana

Steve Pardo/ The Detroit News

Romulus? The former police chief of Romulus and five officers from a special investigative division allegedly spent more than $100,000 in forfeited drug money to buy booze, marijuana, prostitutes, lavish trips and a tanning salon for the ex-chief's wife, authorities said Tuesday.

The ex-chief, Michael St. Andre, and his wife, Sandra Vlaz-St. Andre, both 50, face up to 20 years in prison for their alleged role in the misuse of money that Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said went on from January 2006 to this month.

Also charged were Detectives Richard Balzer, 50; Richard Landry, 39; Donald Hopkins, 38; Jeremy Channells, 35; and Larry Droege, 32. Each faces charges that carry prison terms ranging from five to 20 years.

Worthy said the officers falsified reports and misused city funds to deposit cash into personal bank accounts. More allegedly was spent on a rehearsal dinner for an informant and on false payments to informants.

St. Andre paid for a trip to California for a female friend and her child that included airline tickets, rental cars and high-end hotel stays, Worthy said.

The officers also are accused of filing fake reports and double-dipping by charging the city for items such as uniform expenditures while pulling money from the drug forfeiture funds.

The investigation started after a police official ? described by Worthy as "highly placed" ? asked Michigan State Police to investigate the department's use of drug forfeiture funds. The investigation began in January 2009.

The charges announced Tuesday stemmed from the probe of what Worthy called "a culture of corruption and greed at its core."

"This is not an indictment of the entire Romulus Police Department that has honest, hardworking officers who put their lives on the line to protect us each day," Worthy said.

"Although an investigation of this nature takes hundreds of hours of time, it is crucial that we charge defendants where we find them, even when it is a police department."

Drug forfeiture funds can be used only for the enforcement and enhancement of controlled-substance laws.

$40K misused in a year

Romulus Mayor Alan Lambert said he was disappointed in the developments.

"It's a shame that someone would do that ? actually break the law instead of enforce it," the mayor said. "If they committed these crimes, they're going to get what they deserve."

Lambert said the five detectives have been suspended without pay pending the outcome of the legal proceedings.

St. Andre faces 10 charges, including conducting a criminal enterprise and acquiring or maintaining a criminal enterprise. Vlaz-St. Andre was charged with acquiring or maintaining a criminal enterprise and conspiracy criminal enterprise.

The five officers worked in the department's Special Investigation Unit.

They answered directly to St. Andre as they investigated liquor violations and alleged prostitution and narcotics trafficking at the Landing Strip in Romulus and Subi's Place in Southgate, Worthy said.

The investigation was hidden from the department's special investigations supervisor, she added.

The men allegedly spent city money on prostitutes, alcohol and marijuana, including $40,000 in misused funds from January 2010 to January 2011, she added.

Balzer, Landry and Hopkins face up to 20 years in prison on charges including conducting a criminal enterprise and conspiracy to conduct a criminal enterprise. Channells and Droege face up to five years on misconduct in office charges.

Managers at the strip clubs declined comment.

New chief to make changes

St. Andre allegedly spent $75,000 from the forfeiture fund on the purchase and operation of a Westland tanning salon run by his wife, Worthy said.

In March, state police raided the tanning salon, St. Andre's home, the police station and other sites as part of an investigation of the department.

At that time, St. Andre told The Detroit News the investigation centered on the department's narcotics unit not paying informants properly.

St. Andre said then he was the focus of the investigation. He took a nearly seven-week leave. St. Andre, who returned to work in late April, announced his retirement Sept. 14. Tuesday was to be his last day.

The defendants were arraigned Tuesday afternoon in 34th District Court in Romulus before Judge Brian Oakley. All waived the formal reading of charges, and none spoke.

Michael Rataj, an attorney for Balzer, said afterward, "I can't speak for the others, but on behalf of my client, he's very confident he'll be cleared."

Oakley ordered the defendants to surrender their passports. Bond was set at $25,000 for the former chief; at $20,000 for Balzer, Landry and Hopkins; and $5,000 for Vlaz-St. Andre, Channells and Droege.

A preliminary exam was set for 1:30 p.m. Oct. 5.

Records obtained by The Detroit News in 2009 show Romulus collected $1.21 million in seized vehicles and money from 2006-08.

It's unclear how much of that was related to drug forfeitures alone and the amount communities collect can vary widely.

The department received nearly $839,000 in 2007, and $57,442 in 2004.

Robert Dickerson, a 25-year Wayne County Sheriff's Department veteran, was sworn in as police chief Sept. 19. He has changed locks on access areas and added cameras to sensitive areas, and plans other changes.

"Little things I can do right away," he said. "But then I have to work on policies and procedures as well. This department lacks policy and procedures, and that's where I'm going to step in."

Lambert said he has faith in Dickerson and is confident necessary changes will be made.

"Our new chief is reviewing every single policy to make sure this kind of abuse can never happen again," the mayor said.

City officials said they hope the city can move forward.

"I'm glad there's been some action," said Leroy Burcroff, mayor pro tem. "Let's move forward. Now we can rebuild the department and put the pieces back together."

"This really has been a long, drawn-out, very dreadful, tiring time not only for the council but for the citizens," Councilwoman Eva Web said. "Abuse of power is a serious thing. But my heart goes out to the spouses, the children, the families of these officers."
 
I'm sure things like these happen all the time. cop pulls over some kid for speeding finds a small amount of weed "confiscates" it and lets the kid go with a warning. I do know for a fact that in my area when the cops bust underage drinkers they just bring all the booze back to their homes.
 
http://blog.norml.org/2011/09/28/fe...you-dont-have-second-amendment-rights-period/

Link to the memo PDF http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf

Feds To Legal Medical Marijuana Patients: You Don?t Have Second Amendment Rights. Period.

The federal government, notably under the current administration, continues to paint itself into a corner politically speaking regarding Mr. Obama?s pre-election promises to ?fix the problem with medical marijuana?.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) issued a memorandum on September 21 to all gun dealers in the United States for the expressed purpose of informing them that they MUST discriminate against lawful medical cannabis patients and DENY them their Second Amendment right to buy and possess a firearm for hunting and/or personal protection.

The feds newest ?clarifying? memo regarding medical cannabis (proceeding the 2009 Ogden and 2011 Cole memos) is notable because members of NORML?s Legal Committee recently have been successfully challenging local and state law enforcement officials who?ve chosen to discriminate against lawful medical cannabis patients by denying them permits for a concealed weapon.

Why is it OK and does it make any sense at all for lawful medical patients who are prescribed powerful painkillers and sedatives to be able to enjoy their Second Amendment rights and responsibilities, but medical cannabis patients who want to hunt or have self-protection in their homes are overtly discriminated against by our own federal government?

This new ATF memo will provide an interesting test to see if the National Rifle Association really does support citizens? rights to bear arms.


The Second Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


The only laws that most people that consume marijuana break are the laws against marijuana. I see this as a continuing effort to make life harder for those that use marijuana as a medicine. Par for the course in the continuing saga of Reefer Madness lead government.
 
 
Did anyone catch Prohibition on PBS? IT was eerie how closely modern prohibition has it's parallels. For those that missed it, I am sure it will get replayed on PBS several times.



http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141128178/u-s-troops-increase-aid-to-mexico-in-drug-war?ft=1&f=1001

U.S. Troops Increase Aid To Mexico In Drug War


MEXICO CITY ? When a young corporal in the Mexican marines was ambushed by drug cartel gunmen in the state of Tamaulipas, his first thoughts were for his pregnant wife and unborn child.

But within a split second, he was focused on combat, as his unit took defensive positions around their convoy to return fire.

They managed to shoot dead four attackers while only suffering two injuries.

The victory ? one of many by Mexico's marines ? was helped largely by U.S.-supplied equipment and training with the U.S. Northern Command in Colorado.

"We have learned from American officers who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan," said the corporal, who asked that his name not be used as he is not authorized to speak to the media.

"The Americans suffer from similar types of ambushes in their wars, and have learned how to respond to them in a tight, disciplined way. We apply those techniques to our fight here."

Extensive training of the Mexican marines is one of several ways in which the U.S. military machine has quietly escalated its role in Mexico's ultra-violent drug war in the last two years.

U.S. Supplies Equipment And Advisers

The U.S. has also supplied Mexico with state-of-the-art military hardware, including Black Hawk helicopters and surveillance drones.

Furthermore, CIA operatives and American military contractors were recently posted at a Mexican military base to advise directly on operations, according to the New York Times.

The question of U.S. military involvement in Mexico came into the national spotlight this week after Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry contemplated American troops shooting it out with cartel hit squads.

"It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off our border," Perry said.

Mexico's ambassador to the U.S. swiftly responded saying that "U.S. troops on Mexican soil is not on the table."

But few in the U.S. are aware how entrenched their military machine has already become south of the Rio Grande.

The rising American presence has caused consternation in Mexico, a strongly nationalist country that annually celebrates the ninos heroes, child soldiers who died fighting the U.S. in 1847.

Some commentators here say new American involvement violates Mexico's constitution.

Mexican Skepticism

Political analyst Jose Antonio Crespo argues that the United States is supporting a war that simply doesn't work.

"Launching a frontal combat against all the drug cartels at once is just causing more violence and not getting to the roots of the problem," Crespo said. "The United States encourages this failed policy. And then it gets concerned by all the violence it causes."

However, Crespo concedes that the U.S.-trained marines have become the most efficient force in the Mexican military.

Directed by Mexico's Navy Department, the marines have been increasingly favored by U.S. officials over the last two years.

In one diplomatic cable uncovered by Wikileaks, former ambassador Carlos Pascual praised the marines for their "emerging role as a key player in the counternarcotics fight."

Following training with the U.S. Northern Command, the marines have shot dead several major cartel bosses, including Arturo Beltran Leyva, alias "The Beard" and Ezequiel "Tony Tormenta" Cardenas.

On Wednesday, the marines took charge of a security operation in the port of Veracruz, where thugs dumped 35 corpses on a road during rush hour last month.

The Mexican marines are helped by the fact that most have a higher level of education than those in the Mexican army or federal police, the marine corporal said.

"We are considered to be the yuppies in the Mexican military," he said. "Me and most of my colleagues have university degrees. A lot of regular soldiers come from poor villages and left school when they were 16."

The Mexican marines are also considered much less corrupt than their counterparts, because they traditionally have been uninvolved in the drug war ? and have had less contact with the tempting offers of billionaire traffickers.

However, the analyst Crespo fears that as the marines take to the frontline, they could become more compromised ? and U.S. training and equipment could fall into the hands of the gangsters.

At least one member of the feared Zetas gang had received U.S. training while working as a Mexican soldier before he defected to the cartels, according to another embassy cable uncovered by Wikileaks.

"It is impossible to guarantee that every Mexican soldier who receives our training in the future will not defect to organized crime," that cable said.

"We remain hopeful however, that the passage of harsh legislation instituting a 60-year sentence for soldiers who become involved in organized crime will be a useful deterrent."

Many in Mexico are less optimistic.

"As the marines are stationed in more areas where drug cartels are strong, there is high risk they could be contaminated ? just like the army and police," Crespo said. "And then who can we turn to?"
 
An op-ed followed by a response.

Prohibition's real lessons for drug policy

Despite the 'failure' of Prohibition, there's little reason to believe that the benefits of drug legalization would outweigh its costs.


By Kevin A. Sabet

October 5, 2011
Prohibition ? America's notoriously "failed social experiment" to rid the country of alcohol ? took center stage this week as PBS broadcast Ken Burns' highly acclaimed series on the subject. And already, it has been seized on by drug legalization advocates, who say it proves that drug prohibition should be abandoned.

But a closer look at what resulted from alcohol prohibition and its relevance to today's anti-drug effort reveals a far more nuanced picture than the legalization lobby might like to admit.

As argued by Harvard's Mark Moore and other astute policy observers, alcohol prohibition had beneficial effects along with the negative ones. Alcohol use plummeted among the general population. Cirrhosis of the liver fell by 66% among men. Arrests for public drunkenness declined by half.

Yes, organized crime was emboldened, but the mob was already powerful before Prohibition, and it continued to be long after.

No one is suggesting that alcohol prohibition should be reinstated. Americans have concluded that the right to drink outweighs public health and safety consequences. But it is important to remember that the policy was not the complete failure that most think it was, and so we should be wary of misapplying its lessons.

If our experience with Prohibition was a nuanced one, then it is surely a stretch to apply the so-called conventional wisdom associated with it to help us shape policies on other intoxicants today. Still, a favorite argument of drug legalization supporters is that because "we all know" alcohol prohibition failed, drug prohibition is destined to fail too. Given modern America's thirst for liquor, it is a clever political maneuver to link the two policies in this way. But notwithstanding one's position on the success or failure of alcohol prohibition, there are key differences between that policy and modern-day drug enforcement that render a comparison almost useless for serious policy analysis.

First, it should be remembered that unlike illegal drugs today, alcohol was never prohibited altogether. Laws forbade the sale and distribution of liquor, but personal use was not against the law. Second, alcohol prohibition was not enforced in the way today's drug laws are. Congress and the executive branch were uninterested in enforcing the law. Even many prohibitionists felt that the law was so effective it did not need enforcement. Police, prosecutors, judges and juries frequently refused to use the powers the law gave them. In 1927, only 18 of the 48 states even budgeted money for the enforcement of Prohibition, and some states openly defied the law.

The key difference between alcohol and drug prohibition, however, lies in the substance itself. Alcohol, unlike illegal drugs, has a long history of widespread, accepted use in our society, dating back to before biblical times. Illegal drugs cannot claim such pervasive use by a large part of the planet's population over such a long period of time.

What lessons should we be taking from America's experiment with Prohibition to inform our drug policy? One is that when a substance is legal, powerful business interests have an incentive to encourage use by keeping prices low. Heavier use, in turn, means heavier social costs. For example, alcohol is the cause of 1 million more arrests annually than are all illegal drugs combined. Indeed, alcohol use leads to $180 billion in costs associated with healthcare, the criminal justice system and lost productivity; alcohol taxes, on the other hand ? kept outrageously low by a powerful lobby ? generate revenue amounting to less than a tenth of these costs.

Even so, drug legalization advocates try to capitalize on our country's current budget woes and use the potential for new tax revenue as a key argument in favor of repealing drug laws. But as author Daniel Okrent, whose research into Prohibition inspired Burns' series, wrote last year, "The history of the intimate relationship between drinking and taxing suggests ? that ? [people] indulging a fantasy of income tax relief emerging from a cloud of legalized marijuana smoke should realize that it is likely only a pipe dream."

If our experience with legal alcohol provides us with any lessons for drug policy, it is this: We have little reason to believe that the benefits of drug legalization would outweigh its costs.

But that doesn't mean that we need to be severe and punitive in our drug enforcement either. People in recovery from alcohol and other drug addictions should be entitled to social benefits, including access to education, housing and employment opportunities, despite their past drug use. We should think seriously about the rationale and effectiveness of imposing harsh mandatory minimum sentences for simple drug possession. And no one can credibly argue that we have enough treatment slots for everyone who needs them, or that we have an adequate supply of evidence-based drug prevention for every school kid regardless of economic background. Indeed, our current drug policy leaves something to be desired, and like most policies, it needs constant refinement.

Still, it is wrongheaded to think that the only choices we have in drug policy are a punitive approach centered exclusively on enforcement, or one based on careless legalization. Neither has ever worked particularly well.

Kevin A. Sabet stepped down last month as senior policy advisor to President Obama's drug czar. He currently is a consultant and a fellow at the Center for Substance Abuse Solutions at the University of Pennsylvania. http://www.kevinsabet.com

The response.

Drug war: What prohibition costs us [Blowback]

Stephen Downing, a retired deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, responds to The Times' Oct. 5 Op-Ed article, "Prohibition's real lessons for drug policy." If you would like to respond to a recent Times article, editorial or Op-Ed in our Blowback forum, here are our FAQs and submission policy.

Drug prohibitionists like former White House drug czar staffer Kevin A. Sabet seem to be in a panic over Ken Burns' PBS documentary broadcast "Prohibition" because of its clear and convincing parallel to today's equally disastrous war on drugs. The earlier experiment lasted less than 14 years, but today?s failed prohibition was declared by President Nixon 40 years ago and has cost our country more than $1 trillion in cash and much more in immeasurable social harm.

As a student of history and a retired deputy chief of police with the Los Angeles Police Department, I can attest that the damage that came from the prohibition of alcohol pales in comparison to the harm wrought by drug prohibition. In the last 40 years drug money has fueled the growth of violent street gangs in Los Angeles, from two (Bloods and Crips) with a membership of less than 50 people before the drug war to 20,000 gangs with a membership of about 1 million across the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of Justice. These gangs serve as the distributors, collection agents and enforcers for the Mexican cartels that the Justice Department says occupy more than 1,000 U.S. cities.

Sabet, a former advisor to the White House drug policy advisor, ignores these prohibition-created harms, making no mention of the nearly 50,000 people killed in Mexico over the last five years as cartels have battled it out to control drug routes, territories and enforce collections. When one cartel leader is arrested or killed, it makes no impact on the drug trade and only serves to create more violence, as lower-level traffickers fight for the newly open top spot.

U.S. law enforcement officials report that as much as 70% of cartel profits come from marijuana alone. There's no question that ending today's prohibition on drugs -- starting with marijuana -- would do more to hurt the cartels than any level of law enforcement skill or dedication ever can.

Worse than being ineffective, though, the war on drugs creates dangerous distractions for police officers who would rather focus on improving public safety. For example, the LAPD announced this week that it will take 150 police officers off the streets to accommodate the state's shuffling of prisoners to the county level. The state must do this to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's order to cut our drug-war-induced overcrowded prison population by 30,000 -- and our state has already laid off thousands of teachers thanks in part to funding diverted to building more prisons and hiring more guards.

This follows on the heels of another reallocation of police resources in Los Angeles when the LAPD and the L.A. Sheriff's Department woke up to a three-year backlog of rape kits. Police labs have only a finite amount of resources, and drug testing often takes priority over other cases that demand attention. Detectives (and victims) waiting for lab results related to rape and other serious crimes stood in line for months while tests for custody-related possession of pot and other drugs took precedence.

There's no doubt that the violence, the growth of cartels and gangs, the overpopulation of our prisons and the squandering of our police resources would not occur if we eliminated illegal drug profits and implemented a non-criminal approach to regulating drugs. We did this once with alcohol, and there's no reason we can't do it with other drugs today.

-- Stephen Downing
 
 
California Medical Assn. calls for legalization of marijuana

The doctor group questions the medical value of pot and acknowledges some health risk from its use but urges it be regulated like alcohol. A law enforcement official harshly criticizes the new stance.



Reporting from Sacramento? The state's largest doctor group is calling for legalization of marijuana, even as it pronounces cannabis to be of questionable medical value.

Trustees of the California Medical Assn., which represents more than 35,000 physicians statewide, adopted the position at their annual meeting in Anaheim late Friday. It is the first major medical association in the nation to urge legalization of the drug, according to a group spokeswoman, who said the larger membership was notified Saturday.

Dr. Donald Lyman, the Sacramento physician who wrote the group's new policy, attributed the shift to growing frustration over California's medical marijuana law, which permits cannabis use with a doctor's recommendation. That, he said, has created an untenable situation for physicians: deciding whether to give patients a substance that is illegal under federal law.

"It's an uncomfortable position for doctors," he said. "It is an open question whether cannabis is useful or not. That question can only be answered once it is legalized and more research is done. Then, and only then, can we know what it is useful for."

The CMA's new stance appears to have as much to do with politics as science. The group has rejected one of the main arguments of medical marijuana advocates, declaring that the substance has few proven health benefits and comparing it to a "folk remedy."

The group acknowledges some health risk associated with marijuana use and proposes that it be regulated along the lines of alcohol and tobacco. But it says the consequences of criminalization outweigh the hazards.

Lyman says current laws have "proven to be a failed public health policy." He cited increased prison costs, the effect on families when marijuana users are imprisoned and racial inequalities in drug-sentencing cases.

The organization's announcement provoked some angry response.

"I wonder what they're smoking," said John Lovell, spokesman for the California Police Chiefs Assn. "Given everything that we know about the physiological impacts of marijuana ? how it affects young brains, the number of accidents associated with driving under the influence ? it's just an unbelievably irresponsible position
."

The CMA's view is also controversial in the medical community.

Dr. Robert DuPont, an M.D. and professor of psychiatry at Georgetown Medical School, said the association's call for legalization showed "a reckless disregard of the public health. I think it's going to lead to more use, and that, to me, is a public health concern. I'm not sure they've thought through what the implications of legalization would be."

Dr. Igor Grant, head of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis at UC San Diego, defended the drug's therapeutic use.

"There's good evidence that it has medicinal value," he said. "Can you say it's 100% bulletproof? No. But the research we've done at the center shows it's helpful with certain types of pain."

The federal government views cannabis as a substance with no medical use, on a par with heroin and LSD. The CMA wants the Obama administration to reclassify it to help promote further research on its medical potential.

But Washington appears to be moving in the other direction. As recently as July, the federal government turned down a request to reclassify marijuana. That decision is being appealed in federal court by legalization advocates.

In recent weeks, the Obama administration has begun cracking down on California's medical marijuana industry, threatening to prosecute landlords who rent buildings to pot dispensaries.

California's marijuana laws have eased over the last 15 years. State voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, decriminalizing it for medicinal purposes. Federal law still prohibits the sale or possession of the drug for any reason.

The CMA opposed Proposition 215, and it argues that doctors have been placed unwillingly in the center of the feud over the drug.

"When the proposition passed, we as an organized medical community got thrown into the middle of this issue, because the posture of the proposition and its proponents found that cannabis is a medicinal product that is useful for a long list of specific ailments," Lyman said.

The state has since softened its laws on even recreational use of the drug. In 2010, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that reclassified possession of less than an ounce from a misdemeanor to an infraction.

At the same time, the number of marijuana dispensaries was skyrocketing, to between 1,000 and 2,000 statewide, according to estimates by law enforcement officials. In January, the Los Angeles City Council set strict limits on pot outlets, ordering the closure of hundreds of them.

Opinion polls show that state voters continue to be in favor of medical marijuana but are divided on the question of total legalization. A recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found 51% opposed to complete legalization and 46% in favor.

Last November, California voters rejected Proposition 19, which would have legalized the possession and cultivation of limited amounts of cannabis and permitted local governments to regulate it and tax sales. The CMA took no public position on the measure, its leaders said.

Across the country, physicians have called for more cannabis-related research. The CMA's parent organization, the American Medical Assn., has said the federal government should consider easing research restrictions.

Meanwhile, Lyman said, "there is considerable harm being done."


The CMA is playing this fairly smart. They have to play devils advocate while saying the status quo is worse than the alternative, ie., question the safety and effectiveness of marijuana while pushing for testing to prove or disprove the questions they raise. The AMA has said the testing needs to be done, yet the DEA is still resisting the testing as they are required to by law. The Controlled Substance Act is a circle jerk that gives the DEA approval over the testing.
 
Marijuana Is High on Americans? Issue List

Forget jobs and spending cuts. Ask around online, and it seems Americans just want the right to get high.

Marijuana legalization has been the top issue on the White House?s new ?We the People? petition site since it launched last month as a way for citizens to lobby for issues that matter most to them.

The marijuana petition already has more than 55,000 signatures ? 20,000 more than any other issue on the site and much more than the 25,000-signature threshold administrators set to warrant an official response. The White House has not yet responded to the marijuana petition.

And so it has been each time the Obama administration engaged voters online: Marijuana legalization was among the most popular questions raised on Twitter, YouTube and Change.gov, the president?s transition site.

?I don?t know what this says about the online audience,? Obama joked when answering questions from Change.gov two years ago. Then he dismissed the idea that establishing a legal marijuana trade could boost the economy.

What it seems to say is that while the marijuana lobby has a motivated base of online supporters, pot advocates have failed to translate that grass-roots support into political might.

?The political mind is pretty simple: What can you do for me, what can you do to harm me. ... We?re not effectively casting that in either direction,? said Allen St. Pierre, executive director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which started the White House petition.

St. Pierre said online petitions help spread the word and generate supporters who can call and write Congress, but they have not translated into the real-world pressure ? and money ? needed for his side to win.

His group?s political action committee gave about $10,000 in the previous election. A similar group, the Marijuana Policy Project, spent nearly $80,000 in the 2010 election cycle and also devoted $60,000 to lobbying last year, small amounts compared with the millions of dollars spent by other interest groups.

?We are not nearly as organized to put together the type of donations and PACs that arrest and immediately catch the attention of the elite body politic,? St. Pierre said.

The advocates do have a bipartisan bill ? backed by Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.) ? to limit the federal government?s role in marijuana enforcement. Though it?s unlikely to pass, Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Morgan Fox called the measure a ?placeholder? to ?keep the conversation alive.?

?Considering the current political climate on the federal level, I don?t think we?re ever going to see a tax-and-regulate system for marijuana consumption. I think we?ll see the feds stepping back and allowing the states to regulate it,? he said.

Fox praised online petitions for helping generate media interest and removing the stigma around marijuana.

?Politicians need courage. ... Courage comes in the form of lots of public support,? he said.

Fox agreed with St. Pierre that the online support is not enough. He said many pot smokers and their supporters feel comfortable backing the issue on the Internet, where there is relative anonymity, but fear harassment if they do so in person.

The creation of an industry trade group last year has helped legitimize the cause. The National Cannabis Industry Association represents the $1.7 billion legal medical marijuana industry, including growers and suppliers.

The group has focused more on business needs, such as access to banking and tax credits, while remaining neutral on legalization.

?As an industry, basically they are just trying to have the federal government respect what they are doing legally now under state law,? said Steve Fox (no relation to Morgan Fox), a lobbyist for the trade group and the Marijuana Policy Project.

Still, the grass-roots and industry interests often align. In California, he said, efforts by federal prosecutors to control medical marijuana use are ?driving everyone together.?

?Politicians, starting with President Obama, will need to understand that they?re actually damaging themselves politically by taking these actions,? he said, noting that online petitions are one way for voters to express their disappointment.

The marijuana advocates said polls show that most Americans are on their side, especially younger voters.

?Our opposition is dying and those who are younger just become increasingly supportive because they know it?s not a big deal,? Steve Fox said.

Yet there is also growing opposition from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The group hasn?t weighed in on legalization but has raised concerns about its impact on drugged driving.

?A lot of people sign petitions online who just want to smoke,? said J.T. Griffin, senior vice president for public policy at MADD. ?There is a bigger policy debate that needs to be addressed before lawmakers can make a good decision.?

For the Drug Free America Foundation, legalization is out of the question.

?It is an impairing drug. People have been harmed by it. To say it is a safe drug is just another one of their big fat lies,? Calvina Fay, the group?s executive director, said of the pro-marijuana lobby.
 
Poll: 50% of Americans -- a record high -- favor legal marijuana


Slowly but surely, Americans seem to be making peace with the pot pipe.

According to a poll released by Gallup on Monday, 50% of Americans surveyed say marijuana use should be legal ? up from 46% last year. This year, 46% percent said it should be illegal.

Those numbers mean that, for the first time in the poll's 42-year-history, Americans who say that marijuana should be legal outnumber those who say it should be illegal.

Societal acceptance of marijuana has come a long way since 1969, when Gallup first posed the question "Should marijuana use be legal?" Back then, only 12% of Americans favored legalization of the drug. From the '70s through the mid-'90s, support remained in the 20s, but it has been climbing steadily since 2002.

Some interesting results from the most recent poll:
?Men are more likely to support legalizing marijuana than women (55% vs. 46%).
?People in the West are more likely to support it than people in the East (55% vs. 51%).
?People ages 18-29 are twice as likely to support marijuana use as people 65 or older (62% vs. 31%).

The findings come less than six months after the federal government ruled that marijuana should remain classified as a Schedule 1 drug, which means the government considers it as dangerous as heroin.

In June, Michele M. Leonhart, head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, said that marijuana would remain classified as Schedule 1 because it "has a high potential for abuse" and "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."

That now appears slightly out of step with what most Americans think. A Gallup survey last year found that 70% of people favored making it legal for doctors to prescribe marijuana to reduce pain and suffering.
 
http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/prohibition-hurts-children-far-more-than-marijuana/10192011/

Prohibition Hurts Children Far More Than Marijuana

One of the most often-heard arguments against marijuana reform can basically be summed up as follows:

?But what about the children??

Prohibitionists are quick to trot this one out whenever their other arguments have failed because it?s an easy way to elicit a strong emotional response. They claim that marijuana reform will lead to increased rates of use, developmental damage, and easier access to marijuana. Even talking about the issue will lead to higher rates of use, according to their arguments. Never mind that teen use rates tend to decrease in states that pass medical marijuana laws, or that licensed distributors would have ample reason to ID customers.

No, facts don?t really apply to this argument. It is very useful, however, when it comes to terrifying parents. According to the standard drug warrior mentality, the only way to keep kids away from marijuana is to arrest adults for using it. To do otherwise would ?send the wrong message to our youth.?

Apparently, all this concern does not extend to children living on the U.S.-Mexico border:


SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) ? Texas law enforcement officials say several Mexican drug cartels are luring youngsters as young as 11 to work in their smuggling operations.

Steven McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, told Reuters the drug gangs have a chilling name for the young Texans lured into their operations.

?They call them ?the expendables,?? he said.

McCraw said his investigators have evidence six Mexican drug gangs ? including the violent Zetas ? have ?command and control centers? in Texas actively recruiting children for their operations, attracting them with what appears to be ?easy money? for doing simple tasks.

The policy of marijuana prohibition is the primary reason cartels are able to bring in so much profit from distribution within the U.S., the reason they are in such brutal competition with each other, and the catalyst for using cheap and available child conscripts within our borders. Instituting more rational marijuana policies and bringing marijuana into a regulated, legal market would greatly diminish the power of the cartels, as well as their need to corrupt our youth. Licensed businesses, unlike cartels, must obey child labor laws and other regulations in order to stay in business.

Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske and other prohibitionists don?t want to hear that, though. It seems as if they have no problem using imaginary children to scare people away from reform. Real children, however, are ?expendable.?



http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/10/24/1877435/growers-left-alone-in-mexican.html

Growers left alone in Mexican drug war

EL BARRIL, Mexico ? The Mexican government is allowing domestic marijuana and opium poppy production to climb to record levels, as soldiers who once cut and burned illegal crops here in the vast Sierra Madre mountains are being redeployed to cities to wage urban warfare against criminal gangs.

Since President Felipe Calderon ordered his troops into the streets in late 2006, the acreage dedicated to marijuana farming has nearly doubled in Mexico, according to technical reports by the U.S. government and United Nations, data provided by the Mexican military, and interviews with law enforcement agents and growers.

The acreage devoted to opium poppies also has soared, according to the U.S. State Department, making Mexico the second-leading heroin producer in the world, after Afghanistan.

Five years into the fight against Mexico?s drug cartels, the country?s sagging eradication efforts expose a major weakness in a U.S.-backed strategy whose leading goal for American officials has been a reduction in the amount of narcotics on U.S. streets. With Mexican security forces busy fighting off mafia gunmen in places such as Monterrey and Acapulco, their capacity ? or commitment ? to ripping up rural marijuana and poppy plants has fallen off, sending a surge of fresh dope over the U.S. border.

U.S. officials say they are worried about a new flood of cheap drugs from Mexico but have limited ability to push for a more aggressive eradication campaign, given the government?s urgent need to beat back the criminals. And by seizing more-costly shipments of South American cocaine from the cartels, both governments believe that they can do more damage to their networks.

Mexican troops hacked and burned 77,500 acres of marijuana in 2005, the year before Calderon took office. But last year they cleared just 43,000 acres, according to the Mexican army and marines. Marijuana seizures at America?s southwest border went from 1 million kilograms in 2006 to 1.5 million kilograms in 2010.
 
From my home state and part of what has kept me busy for a couple of months (fighting attacks on a law that can help people, including me)

Attorney General: Police can seize medical marijuana


A provision of the Michigan medical marijuana law that prohibits police from seizing pot possessed by licensed medical marijuana patients is invalid because it conflicts with federal law, Attorney General Bill Schuette said in an opinion released today, one in which he warns officers who return marijuana to patients could be prosecuted as dope dealers.

?It is ?impossible? for state law enforcement officers to comply with their state law duty not to forfeit medical marijuana, and their federal law duty not to distribute or aid in the distribution of marijuana,? according to the opinion.

Schuette was responding to a request from state Rep. Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant, who asked whether police were required to return marijuana to medical marijuana patients who had been arrested or detained upon their release.

An opinion from the attorney general is generally considered binding legal opinion, especially on state agencies like the Michigan State Police, unless and until it is rejected by a judge.

It is the latest in a series of moves by the attorney general to narrow the scope and application of the law, approved by Michigan voters in 2008. Schuette, then a recently-retired state appeals court judge, led the campaign in opposition to the initiative.

Here is the opinion: http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/2010s/op10341.htm

And the whole law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(r0...Object&objectName=mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008

Oh, and here is a bit of history and why he may feel the way he does now. (He used to be a toker, but you can't hold that against him according to him)


Schuette, marijuana and Dow


Attorney General Bill Schuette's opposition to medical marijuana has been described by some observers as bordering on an obsession.

Why is Schuette so obsessed? Perhaps the real reason is to prevent industrial uses of the hemp plant, from which marijuana is derived, from competing with products of the Dow Chemical Company, in which Schuette's family has a large financial stake, while producing top executives. Schuette's stepfather, Carl Gerstacker, was a Dow CEO, and his father, William Schuette, Sr., was in line to become CEO when he died of a heart attack in 1959. The Schuette family's Dow-based wealth has helped to bankroll a long political career that began in 1984, when he was elected to Congress at 31.

Dishonestly demonizing the use of marijuana, which is for the most part benign, as a cover for crushing potential competition from industrial hemp, is nothing new. Back in the 1930s, one of the most successful campaigns that resulted in the 1937 federal marijuana prohibition was run by newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who used his newspaper chain to spread lies about alleged harmful effects of marijuana. But Hearst's real concern was that using hemp fiber to produce paper pulp for newspapers would cut into his own paper pulp business derived from extensive timber holdings. At the same time, the DuPont family and financier Andrew Mellon wanted marijuana banned to prevent hemp fiber from competing with DuPont's nylon.

So it is with Dow today. Industrial uses of hemp include plastics, water purification and weed control that could compete with Dow products and perhaps cause its business to decline, costing the Schuette family a lot of money. As such, Schuette, who led the failed campaign against Proposal 1 in 2008, is now doing all he can to undermine medical marijuana, interpreting the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act as narrowly as possible. After all, if medical marijuana were to become solidly established as a legal business in Michigan, there would be no excuse not to allow industrial hemp, which has a THC level too low for recreational use.

So the next time you hear Schuette, a hypocrite who has admitted smoking marijuana in college, dishonestly attack medical marijuana, understand that he isn't out to protect the public. He's just in it for the money.


He has attacked this law (a voter approved law that is essentially part of the state constitution) since the day he took office. He has left other far more serious issues fall to the side to address a problem where none exist. He is using his office to do this, and somehow just survived a recall vote.
 
-
 
Last edited:
Ex-head of MI5 calls on government to decriminalise and regulate cannabis

Change policy and look at alternative ways of combating UK's drugs culture, says Eliza Manningham-Buller



The former head of MI5 believes the "war on drugs" has proved fruitless and it is time to consider decriminalising the possession and use of small quantities of cannabis.

Eliza Manningham-Buller has backed calls for the government to set up a commission to examine how to tackle the UK's drug culture and consider the highly controversial move of relaxing the law.

She was speaking at a meeting held by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drug Policy Reform on Thursday where senior government representatives met experts from across the world to consider ways of combating the issue.

The cross-bench peer said the current policy was failing and it was time to look at alternative ways of tackling the production and use of drugs by assessing how other countries are dealing with the problem. She believes serious consideration needs to be given to the idea of regulating cannabis so that its psychotic effects can be controlled more closely.

"For the next 50, years do we continue on the same well-worn policy track which has proved so successful so far?," she said. "Or will we acknowledge the truth, that we are unlikely to address the harm that is being caused to the world unless we accept, as the US Senate recently did, that much [not all] of the vast expenditure on the so called 'war on drugs' has been fruitless?

"Would harm be reduced if cannabis was regulated so that its more dangerous components, which can lead to psychosis, were eliminated? Should we follow Portugal's example and focus on drug use as a health issue rather than a crime issue?"

Manningham-Buller said there was too much of a knee-jerk opposition to changing drug policy but it is an issue that needs to be at the forefront of national debate.

She urged politicians to come up with a more successful way of tackling the issue by assessing evidence that looks at how to reduce the harmful effects of drugs in a cost-effective approach.

Christian Guy, policy director of the Centre for Social Justice, agreed that the war on drugs was failing but said it would be dangerous to "wave a white flag in surrender".

He added: "Giving up the fight to tackle illicit drug use now would be disastrous; it would further fuel the social breakdown and addiction poverty which destroys so many lives.

"It would send the wrong signal to those who are counting on our help."
 
http://www.mercurynews.com/saratoga/ci_19385037

Federal agents say 88-year-old Saratoga man's invention is being used by meth labs



Eighty-eight-year-old retired metallurgist Bob Wallace is a self-described tinkerer, but he hardly thinks of himself as the Thomas Edison of the illegal drug world.

He has nothing to hide. His product is packaged by hand in a cluttered Saratoga garage. It's stored in a garden shed in the backyard. The whole operation is guarded by an aged, congenial dog named Buddy.

But federal and state drug enforcement agents are coming down hard on Wallace's humble homemade solution, which he concocted to help backpackers purify water.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and state regulators say druggies can use the single ingredient in his "Polar Pure" water purifier -- iodine -- to make crystal meth.

Wallace says federal and state agents have effectively put him out of business, because authorities won't clear the way for him to buy or sell the iodine he needs for his purification bottles. He has been rejected for a state permit by the Department of Justice and is scheduled to appeal his case before an administrative judge in Sacramento next month.

Meanwhile, the exasperated Stanford University-educated engineer and his 85-year-old girlfriend said the government -- in its zeal to clamp down on meth labs -- has instead stopped hikers, flood victims and others from protecting themselves against a bad case of the runs.

Collateral damage

"This old couple, barely surviving old farts, and we're supposed to be meth dealers? This is just plain stupid," Wallace said, as he sat in the nerve center of his not-so-clandestine compound surrounded by contoured hiking maps, periodic tables and the prototypes of metal snowshoes he invented a few years ago. "These are the same knotheads that make you take your shoes off in the airport."

When asked about Wallace, the DEA -- which, in all fairness, does not provide security in airports -- responded in an email that some investigations revealed that methamphetamine labs were using Polar Pure.

"Methamphetamine is an insidious drug that causes enormous collateral damage," wrote Barbara Carreno, a DEA spokeswoman. "If Mr. Wallace is no longer in business he has perhaps become part of that collateral damage, for it was not a result of DEA regulations, but rather the selfish actions of criminal opportunists. Individuals that readily sacrifice human lives for money."

Wallace and his partner, Marjorie Ottenberg, came up with the idea about 30 years ago as they planned to scale the Popocat?petl volcano in Mexico.

Hoping to avoid Montezuma's revenge, Ottenberg, a chemist by trade, read an article in Backpacker magazine about two doctors who had been infected with Giardia and recommended treating water with crystalline iodine.

"We knew the water was questionable down there, so we stole their idea," Wallace said with an unapologetic grin.

So in 1983, the couple began selling their brown bottles with a small sprinkling of iodine crystals -- about a quarter of an ounce -- in the bottom.

Polar Pure was an instant, if modest, hit among backpackers and world travelers. It was effective, light and never expired, unlike many other products. One bottle can disinfect about 2,000 quarts of water.

But about four years ago, the DEA began to look closely at the product, even citing it in a position paper, and suggested that it was being used by cranksters as well as campers.

In 2007, federal regulations were passed strictly regulating the chemical. Wallace said the new rules mandated that he had to pay a $1,200 regulatory fee, get federal and state permits, keep track of exactly who was buying his product and report anyone suspicious.

Wallace ignored the fee. And if they wanted a list of his customers, he fumed, all they would get would be camping equipment store managers and wholesalers.

There have been two major spikes in demand for Polar Pure: One in 1999 on the eve of Y2K fears and another soon after the Japanese tsunami, when people were afraid that a radiation cloud would float across the Pacific and poison water. Wallace said he sold close to 24,000 bottles in his last few months of business at $6.50 a pop.

Special Agent Richard Camps, a San Jose-based state narcotics task force commander, said he received reports of suspicious buyers.

"Weird-looking people, 'Beavis and Butt-Head'-types, were coming into camping stores and buying everything they had on the shelves," Camps said. "Then they would take off into the mountains and try to cook meth with it." The DEA reported agents found Polar Pure at a meth lab they dismantled in Tennessee two years ago.

Seeking changes

At its height, Polar Pure was bringing in about $100,000 a year, Wallace said during an interview.

"We do?" Ottenberg said in surprise. "Why don't we go on more vacations?"

"Because we're too old to do anything any more," Wallace replied.

In May, his Oklahoma distributor -- warned by the DEA -- said he could no longer send Wallace iodine.

For Wallace to comply, the state Department of Justice fingerprinted the couple and told Wallace he needed to show them such things as a solid security system for his product. Wallace sent a photograph of Buddy sitting on the front porch.

"These guys don't go for my humor," Wallace said. "Cops are the most humorless knotheads on the planet." Even so, Marco Campagna, Wallace's lawyer, promised to strengthen security and make other improvements to allay the government's concerns.

Wallace is not against regulation per se, although he thinks the demand for a customer list is an invasion of privacy and a waste of time. He just feels that the feds should tweak the law to allow distributors to pay a reasonable fee: $10, for example.

Wallace does not live a Pablo Escobar-like life. He putters, invents and drives his 1978 Mercedes-Benz that runs on cooking oil to the De Anza College track, where he jogs a few times a week, barefoot. His "bling" consists of a tumbled collection of obsidian, limestone and mica in the backyard.

"Do I look like a mafia agent?" he said.

It's not so much the financial hardship, Wallace said. It's the irritation of being prevented by what he calls an over-restrictive government to do whatever his restless mind wants to do.

"What the (expletive) else am I going to do? I'm 88!" he said. "We have to do something."

Contact Sean Webby at 408-920-5003.

WHAT IS POLAR PURE?


Polar Pure contains a small sprinkling of iodine crystals, which disinfects water tainted with bacteria.


WHY DO DRUG AGENTS CARE ABOUT IT?


Federal drug agents suspected methamphetamine-makers were using the iodine to make drugs, and strict regulations on the chemical were approved.


WHAT does it all mean for WALLACE?


Wallace said the new rules ordered him to pay a fee, get permits, and keep track of buyers. But his iodine distributor -- warned by the DEA -- won't sell to him.


Using the DEA logic we will have to continue to shutdown companies and products lines that are used in drug manufacturing. I am no expert in the making of meth, or any other synthetic or semi synthetic drug, but I am a fan of Breaking Bad and do have some general knowledge to draw upon to start the list of products.


1) Glass, whether it is the scientific glass pieces or glass pipes, it is now clear that we can no longer tolerate glass of any kind.

2) Cough syrup, who cares if you have a slight sore throat or a cold that this could help you with. They use it to make meth and already card people that buy more then a box or two in most places. So why take the chance that people are really using it for it's intended purpose.

3) Matches, I think it is the sulfur that is used here. Who cares if matches are a superior item for emergency purposes, if you can't light it with a bic or zippo, you are going to have a problem.

4) Hardware stores sell a lot of miscellaneous stuff that gets used in cooks. We don't care if you have a plumbing leak, call a plumber to take care of it.

5) Chemical manufacturers. There are a variety of various chemicals used in a cook. No more chemicals or we will never be safe.

/sarcasm


If they used the same logic they have here for bomb making supplies, we would not have any more fertilizers. Copper wire and egg timers would be next. Is it really the fault of the makers of the various products that get used in making something like meth, or the person using it?

If we looked at things with the DEA's thought process, we could say that the DEA is a terrible blight on our society and therefor needs to be closed down. I think that would be the best option.
 
I think that it is time to stop treating people like children. Drugs should be legal but cut up rough you get nicked. The reason it is supplied is the margins available buy one dollar's(USD) worth from a Farmer and by the time it is cut and sold in US/Europe/Australia it is what? 200USD.

The barriers to entry are the competition who will not undercut you but shoot you. For Ukania the way to do it would be to go back to the way it was handled prior to the 1970s you get a script from a Doctor who will, with credibility, inform you of the effects and the health down sides.

The stories in the press recently are saying that use is falling amoungst the young.

Anyway an interesting programme. ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/if/4075235.stm
 
 
3s%20watermarked%2012-02-11.jpg



For those that don't understand, prescription drug related deaths are the number one killer of people in the USA, yet the fight against marijuana has increased of late.
 
Here is the DEA's version of the ATF's "Fast and Furious". The DEA is laundering money for the cartels.



D.E.A. Launders Mexican Profits of Drug Cartels

WASHINGTON ? Undercover American narcotics agents have laundered or smuggled millions of dollars in drug proceeds as part of Washington?s expanding role in Mexico?s fight against drug cartels, according to current and former federal law enforcement officials.

The agents, primarily with the Drug Enforcement Administration, have handled shipments of hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal cash across borders, those officials said, to identify how criminal organizations move their money, where they keep their assets and, most important, who their leaders are.

They said agents had deposited the drug proceeds in accounts designated by traffickers, or in shell accounts set up by agents.

The officials said that while the D.E.A. conducted such operations in other countries, it began doing so in Mexico only in the past few years. The high-risk activities raise delicate questions about the agency?s effectiveness in bringing down drug kingpins, underscore diplomatic concerns about Mexican sovereignty, and blur the line between surveillance and facilitating crime. As it launders drug money, the agency often allows cartels to continue their operations over months or even years before making seizures or arrests.

Agency officials declined to publicly discuss details of their work, citing concerns about compromising their investigations. But Michael S. Vigil, a former senior agency official who is currently working for a private contracting company called Mission Essential Personnel, said, ?We tried to make sure there was always close supervision of these operations so that we were accomplishing our objectives, and agents weren?t laundering money for the sake of laundering money.?

Another former agency official, who asked not to be identified speaking publicly about delicate operations, said, ?My rule was that if we are going to launder money, we better show results. Otherwise, the D.E.A. could wind up being the largest money launderer in the business, and that money results in violence and deaths.?

Those are precisely the kinds of concerns members of Congress have raised about a gun-smuggling operation known as Fast and Furious, in which agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed people suspected of being low-level smugglers to buy and transport guns across the border in the hope that they would lead to higher-level operatives working for Mexican cartels. After the agency lost track of hundreds of weapons, some later turned up in Mexico; two were found on the United States side of the border where an American Border Patrol agent had been shot to death.

Former D.E.A. officials rejected comparisons between letting guns and money walk away. Money, they said, poses far less of a threat to public safety. And unlike guns, it can lead more directly to the top ranks of criminal organizations.

?These are not the people whose faces are known on the street,? said Robert Mazur, a former D.E.A. agent and the author of a book about his years as an undercover agent inside the Medell?n cartel in Colombia. ?They are super-insulated. And the only way to get to them is to follow their money.?

Another former drug agency official offered this explanation for the laundering operations: ?Building up the evidence to connect the cash to drugs, and connect the first cash pickup to a cartel?s command and control, is a very time consuming process. These people aren?t running a drugstore in downtown L.A. that we can go and lock the doors and place a seizure sticker on the window. These are sophisticated, international operations that practice very tight security. And as far as the Mexican cartels go, they operate in a corrupt country, from cities that the cops can?t even go into.?

The laundering operations that the United States conducts elsewhere ? about 50 so-called Attorney General Exempt Operations are under way around the world ? had been forbidden in Mexico after American customs agents conducted a cross-border sting without notifying Mexican authorities in 1998, which was how most American undercover work was conducted there up to that point.

But that changed in recent years after President Felipe Calder?n declared war against the country?s drug cartels and enlisted the United States to play a leading role in fighting them because of concerns that his security forces had little experience and long histories of corruption.

Today, in operations supervised by the Justice Department and orchestrated to get around sovereignty restrictions, the United States is running numerous undercover laundering investigations against Mexico?s most powerful cartels. One D.E.A. official said it was not unusual for American agents to pick up two or three loads of Mexican drug money each week. A second official said that as Mexican cartels extended their operations from Latin America to Africa, Europe and the Middle East, the reach of the operations had grown as well. When asked how much money had been laundered as a part of the operations, the official would only say, ?A lot.?

?If you?re going to get into the business of laundering money,? the official added, ?then you have to be able to launder money.?

Former counternarcotics officials, who also would speak only on the condition of anonymity about clandestine operations, offered a clearer glimpse of their scale and how they worked. In some cases, the officials said, Mexican agents, posing as smugglers and accompanied by American authorities, pick up traffickers? cash in Mexico. American agents transport the cash on government flights to the United States, where it is deposited into traffickers? accounts, and then wired to companies that provide goods and services to the cartel.

In other cases, D.E.A. agents, posing as launderers, pick up drug proceeds in the United States, deposit them in banks in this country and then wire them to the traffickers in Mexico.

The former officials said that the drug agency tried to seize as much money as it laundered ? partly in the fees the operatives charged traffickers for their services and another part in carefully choreographed arrests at pickup points identified by their undercover operatives.

And the former officials said that federal law enforcement agencies had to seek Justice Department approval to launder amounts greater than $10 million in any single operation. But they said that the cap was treated more as a guideline than a rule, and that it had been waived on many occasions to attract the interest of high-value targets.

?They tell you they?re bringing you $250,000, and they bring you a million,? one former agent said of the traffickers. ?What?s the agent supposed to do then, tell them no, he can?t do it? They?ll kill him.?

It is not clear whether such operations are worth the risks. So far there are few signs that following the money has disrupted the cartels? operations, and little evidence that Mexican drug traffickers are feeling any serious financial pain. Last year, the D.E.A. seized about $1 billion in cash and drug assets, while Mexico seized an estimated $26 million in money laundering investigations, a tiny fraction of the estimated $18 billion to $39 billion in drug money that flows between the countries each year.

Mexico has tightened restrictions on large cash purchases and on bank deposits in dollars in the past five years. But a proposed overhaul of the Mexican attorney general?s office has stalled, its architects said, as have proposed laws that would crack down on money laundered through big corporations and retail chains.

?Mexico still thinks the best way to seize dirty money is to arrest a trafficker, then turn him upside down to see how much change falls out of his pockets,? said Sergio Ferragut, a professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico and the author of a book on money laundering, which he said was ?still a sensitive subject for Mexican authorities.?

Mr. Calder?n boasts that his government?s efforts ? deploying the military across the country ? have fractured many of the country?s powerful cartels and led to the arrests of about two dozen high-level and midlevel traffickers.

But there has been no significant dip in the volume of drugs moving across the country. Reports of human rights violations by police officers and soldiers have soared. And drug-related violence has left more than 40,000 people dead since Mr. Calder?n took office in December 2006.

The death toll is greater than in any period since Mexico?s revolution a century ago, and the policy of close cooperation with Washington may not survive.

?We need to concentrate all our efforts on combating violence and crime that affects people, instead of concentrating on the drug issue,? said a former foreign minister, Jorge G. Casta?eda, at a conference hosted last month by the Cato Institute in Washington. ?It makes absolutely no sense for us to put up 50,000 body bags to stop drugs from entering the United States.?
 
The issue at hand is simple, pragmaticly speaking. You are funding both sides of the war, and you're not even close to winning. The profits of making, distributing and selling drugs in the US come pretty close to what the US government is spending keeping it off the streets.

This, among other points, is why I don't favor the use of drugs being criminal. It's not working, and the pragmatist in me don't believe in sticking to tried and tested sollutions that have never worked. They are no longer sollutions if they don't work.

There is also the moral question of wether or not I have the right to decide what other people put into their own bodies. I may not think liberalism is the right answer to every question in society, but I do believe in social liberalism, the idea that people decide what to do with their lives, if not their money.
 
Top